Page 2351 - Week 08 - Thursday, 7 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
About one month ago, after speaking to Mr Albrighton yet again, he told me that he had been sacked from his job and transferred out of the department. I told him that once again I would be prepared to represent him. I contacted Mr Collaery's office and spoke to David Rossiter, who would not let me speak to Mr Collaery. Mr Rossiter then wrote me a letter suggesting that the matter was sub judice - which it is not - and that it was not appropriate to talk about it.
At the end of the letter he said, "I'd be happy to speak to you again on any occasion". I did not want to talk to David Rossiter; I do not want to talk to David Rossiter about the matter. I wanted to talk to the Attorney-General about a matter that I have looked at for three months and have done nothing about, but members opposite have accused me of doing things for publicity. If that had been true, and they should know it is not, I would have immediately rushed out to the media and said, "Look, there's some terrible injustice here; let's get a good story so I can get my picture in the paper", or whatever.
What I tried to do was go to the right person about it, Bernard Collaery, and he refused to see me on the matter. So finally I spoke to Mr Albrighton. I said, "As nothing else has happened, I am prepared to take it to the Assembly" - hence the matter of public importance. It is appalling, first of all, that I cannot get to see the Attorney-General if I want to discuss a matter of importance. It is appalling that I have to bring something up in this house and it is attempted to be stopped on two occasions, once by misleading the house, by the Attorney-General - the Attorney-General; not just any member. He is supposed to be the senior law-maker in this Assembly, a man who should know the law, who suggests to me and this Assembly that it is sub judice when it is not.
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, I really have to draw the line at some point. Mr Stevenson continues to suggest that the Attorney-General has misled the house. If that is his view, he should move a substantive motion to that effect. But, since that is not the subject of this particular debate, I believe that allegation ought to be withdrawn.
MR SPEAKER: Yes, thank you.
MR STEVENSON: I have already said it may have been that he was misled. I do not know. Until I do know, I will only say that I do not know, as I already said before Mr Gary Humphries got on his feet. I do not seek to make political gain out of it. I simply report the facts. Let us have a look at the possible facts of the matter with Barry Albrighton.
Mr Humphries: Mr Speaker, Mr Stevenson has not withdrawn the statement and I ask you to direct him to do so.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .